Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Granted, many conservatives think libertarians are republicans that want to smoke dope, and many liberals think that libertarians are republicans that want to smoke dope, but lets take real stock of some differences between conservatives and libertarians:

Drugs, prostitution and other consensual "crimes."Militarism and global military presence.The Ten Commandments in the public square.Abortion.Gay marriage (and marriage as a state-sanctioned and -enforced contract in general).Public financing of, well, just about anything beyond defense, courts and police (and even that's a debate).

Get the idea?

"How can libertarians increase their appeal to both the left and the right?"

One of the biggest straw men used by "mainstream" pundits against libertarians involves comparing the current state of things with a "perfectly libertarian" society, as if there's nothing between today and libertarian utopia. This is ludicrous on its face, yet it happens all the time. The way to increase the appeal of libertarianism is to avoid quixotic declarations of "this is how things should work" in favor of "lets move things in a libertarian direction by reducing government involvement in this and that fashion." Oh, and stand apart from the purist nut bars. The Left and the Right aren't comfortable with their nut bars, we shouldn't let ours be the face of the movement either.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You nailed it. To Repubs, you preach economics; to Demos, you preach social choice.

Of course there is no such thing as a perfectly Libertarian society. My other favorite straw men are that you must be a acolyte of Ayn Rand, because apparently she invented it for college students, and you want to move to Somalia, because apparently anarchy is the natural endpoint of a libertarian society.

I have been kicking around the idea of writing an essay about the Libertarian in Modern Society. I think you have the main point of the exercise in the idea that when you get to the road the diverges in the wood, you take the one that promises more liberty.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I'm a big fan of Penn Jillette and his podcast. On it, he often talks libertarian issues, and he presents his libertarian belief set as a purely moral one - that in all things, moving in the direction of greater liberty is the correct and moral way.

As for the ad hominem straw men that people often try to counter my libertarian points with - I have a couple silver bullets in my belt:

- I didn't actually read any Ayn Rand until a couple decades after I figured out that I was a libertarian, and I still haven't read Atlas Shrugged more than a hundred pages in or so.

- I advocate for drug legalization despite having never partaken of an illegal drug in my life, and despite having absolutely no interest in doing so or being around people who do. That extends even to pot. The act of smoking itself repulses me. Yet, despite the latter, I've also advocated on many occasions for smokers' rights, and argue down the second-hand smoke falsehoods that others use to infringe on the rights of some.

I shouldn't need to put forth such rebuttals to the "oh, you're just that way because you want to do soandso, or because you read soandso," because the strengths of my arguments are sufficient. Yet when dealing with people who won't put rationality ahead of their personal prejudices and whose extent of debating ability is "gotcha" games, one sometimes has to stoop.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Of course there is no such thing as a perfectly Libertarian society."

I would argue that early American frontier towns were damned close. I even use them as practical examples of the REAL libertarian positions as well as priorities related to governance (minimal does not mean none). I've never done the research, but I'd be willing to bet $100 that the first "community" employee most of these communities hired was NOT a mayor, but a sheriff.

I've often thought about trying to research the chronology of choices made by these brand new, do it yourself, "towns". What "need" provokes the genesis of governance when it's ALL from scratch and completely organic? Who here thinks it's "poor folks gotta have cell. phones"? :)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I think there is such a thing as a perfect libertarian society. All you have to do is execute all the conservatives and liberals. That's a joke folks.

Seriously though, I think you could approach it, but there is far too much false information out there, believed by too many for "this" generation to be perfectly libertarian. I'm not saying we need the re-education centers of the former Soviet Union, but there is just ... so ... much propaganda that it overwhelms the natural tendency to return to equilibrium.

Markets fluctuate, and sometimes we get events like "Black Monday" or the stock market bubble, or the housing bubble. All of these return to the mean, but not before they spur people to try and solve a temporary problem with a permanent fix.

And, the law of unintended consequences being what it is, it fails to solve the problem, often makes it worse, and certainly reduces liberty. The worst part is that it gives the lawmakers license to take even larger steps to resolve the problem - resulting in a feedback loop that can take generations to unwind (such as: The unionization of Detroit, intergenerational welfare and social security anyone?).

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter,"On it, he often talks libertarian issues, and he presents his libertarian belief set as a purely moral one - that in all things, moving in the direction of greater liberty is the correct and moral way."

It has always puzzled me that so many people who are most certain that even God is cool with "free will", feel entitled to coerce and compel everyone else to do what they want.

"If God be for us,....." Well, God says quite clearly that I decide what to do with the life he gave me; and no one else. Yes, respecting other people's liberty IS the "moral" thing to do.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter, I generally agree with you concerning the policy differences between libertarians and conservatives except for one: abortion. It is easy to build an argument against abortion that is philosophically compatible with libertarianism. Since libertarians believe in the inherent rights of individual human beings, one can easily argue that a human fetus is human being (what else could it be?) and that murdering it is the ultimate violation of its inherent rights.

What about the rights of the woman's "freedom of choice"? Well, she had two chances prior to conception: (1) She had the choice whether or not to have sex and (2) she had the choice whether or not to use contraception. Once those choices were made and conception happened, there is now a third party involved, like it or not. Current law states that only one of the 3 parties involved has any rights whatsoever. Is that really a proper libertarian position?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Jack, I've found that libertarians run the gamut on abortion - there's no fundamentally "libertarian" view on pro- vs anti-. There is common ground, though, in stating that the government should be neither funding nor mandating anything relating to reproductive services.

I listed abortion as an area where libertarians don't fully agree with conservatives, based solely on the fact that many (but certainly not all) libertarians are pro-choice.

The argument does come down to, as you note, whether a fetus is a human being, and in the case of people like me, if not at conception but at birth, at what point during the gestation period?

Not looking to argue the particulars of abortion or abortion politics here. We can argue this one until the cows come home, as I have with a good friend who's libertarian and believes that fertilization is the "go" point, without agreement.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"It is easy to build an argument against abortion that is philosophically compatible with libertarianism."

I've always felt that we go about addressing this in an illogical, and consequently, inconsistent manner.

The one thing that absolutely IS the responsibility of the state is to define legal terms. The state has the messy, but essential duty of defining the age of majority; because nearly all would agree that children can not accept the responsibilities that accompany "rights of citizenship". Defining legal vs. illegal residents is a legislative responsibility; because some rules apply to one and another set of rules apply to the other.

The government does have a responsibility to define when one is recognized by the state as "an individual". Once the state DOES recognize an individual, then questions like abortion become moot. If it's NOT a "recognized individual", then abortion is difficult to ban. And if it IS a "recognized individual", then absolutely no one could possibly have a "right" to kill it; end of discussion.

The state has avoided legislating that definition. But THAT is the factor in all of this that the state MUST legislate. And this is one of those topics with no "objectively provable" right answer. So on this, society can only make a "call" that can not possibly please everybody; and the population needs to be civil enough to accept that even if they have differing beliefs. Peace is not even possible otherwise.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Libertarians can push the envelope where conservatives cannot because, without the Bible, the only definition of "do this" or "don't do that" is personal harm.Saying there is a "compelling state interest" to step into a personal or family matter, even where there's harm, seems to go against strict libertarian principles.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Michael, I believe a fundamental difference is that libertarians (for the most part) are not really trying to produce any specific "outcome". Maybe I'm incorrect about this, but my concept of libertarian philosophy has it far more focused on facilitating the society that individuals have decided to construct. Conservatives, as much as liberals, have a rather detailed and specific image of that society in mind; and wish government to help them impose it.

I hope I am not romanticizing libertarian philosophy in my own mind. If I may take a stab at Yiddish theater, with a hillbilly-Polock flavor. (It really is about the questions, because more people would agree on an answer if we were all asking the same question)

Perspectives shaping abortion view:Conservative - Life is precious in its essence. And "innocent" life especially must be protected. I believe that is essentially the lens for them; or at least the fundamental, primary lens (I'm sure there is an optical term that would work. I just don't know it).Liberals - Self-determination is their equivalent fundamental, primary lens (I will argue with their implementation, but this is their "ideal")libertarian - (yes, an "ideal" that is often compromised by some degree of one of the above) We have a very common situation which transitions over time from the most ultimate privacy to 2 legally autonomous entities, each with "rights". And we've gotta figure out how we are going to deal with this so that society can work.

I probably am missing something or leaving some part of reality out, because this is coming from the gut, not years of thought and development. But most of you guys are welcome to correct, critique or counter. (it's an abstract idea I'm playing with, so there's no emotional attachment here) :)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bob you are arguing that the state must legislate and step in to protect anyone who is defined as an "individual", even though YOU aren't harmed by abortion. You also stated: "... and the population needs to be civil enough to accept that". It sounds like you want to impose an outcome that limits free choice in the absence of harm because someone's behavior bothers you.

I personally abhor abortion. It's a sad event that could have been avoided. But it can also bring peace to a troubled woman and allow her to get on with her life. Isn't that also a good outcome?

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

That is a good question, but I would suppose it depends upon the state. Suppose a psycho hates kids and punches the pregnant mother in the stomach in order to kill the unborn child without hurting the mother. In at least some states that is considered murder. Suppose the killer kills both the mother and the unborn child. That is a double homicide depending upon the state.

How can one call it murder unless there is recognition of the unborn child as an individual.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Punching the mother in the belly and killing her unborn child brings harm to her because it is her property. Totally unlike a case of abortion, where the mother essentially gives up her property rights.

It should depend on the state (if not for Roe v Wade). I'm arguing that a libertarian state, in the strict sense, can only treat it as property damage. If anyone is looking to the Bible for support they will be sorely disappointed. Jewish law considers a human being unviable until 45 days after birth. That's based on a standard reading of the verses in Exodus that deal with tort damage. The event is - are you ready - a case where two men are fighting and one of them knocks down the wife of his opponent, killing her unborn child. He is ordered to pay tort damages but there's nothing said about murder.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Rob and Michael, you are touching on the part of this that troubles me the most. The arbitrary nature of the current state.

I use them as an example only because of familiarity, not because I defend anything, but take the case of Scott and Lacey (I think) Peterson. How can the same essential action be a legal "right" if Lacey decides to do it, but a second murder charge if Scott does it. That is simply SO inconsistent with any sane interpretation of "equal treatment" that I can not reconcile it. We've got people who want a decision whether it is a government funded "procedure" or a capital crime to be a "personal choice". And that is simply outrageous.

As for Roe v. Wade, even they acknowledged viability as a factor; even though that part has simply been discarded by those who cling to that ruling as their claim to "right". Abortion is among the most truly difficult and emotional topics we have to discuss as a society. And it is being discussed and decided by a lot of people who don't care how they get what they "want", as long as the get what they want.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

@Michael, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in this post."Bob you are arguing that the state must legislate and step in to protect anyone who is defined as an "individual", even though YOU aren't harmed by abortion."

I'm not personally harmed by anything done to another individual. I am comfortable with a decision that no one is being "harmed" in an abortion in the, say, 8th week. I am not at all comfortable with calling a baby, 3/4 through the birth process, insignificant tissue the mother is simply discarding. But what I'm most uncomfortable with is the arbitrary and unpredictable way it is currently treated. If she wants it, I'm supposed to even pay for it. If anyone ELSE does it, they can be put in jail for life. And that really is a significant problem for a society that claim justice as a principle.

"Property rights" is a troublesome model; how do you make them "whole", as most property disputes attempt as resolution (just to name one difficulty)? But, I will also admit that I don't have any better ideas.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

As Rob stated it should be up to each state to define whether or not abortion is murder. I'm simply stating that I don't see a biblical basis for saying that abortion is murder; the Bible treats it as tort damage. The Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists reached this conclusion a couple of decades ago.We are left with property damage as the only viable argument in a strict libertarian sense. What is the compelling state interest that would cause you to intervene in a private or family matter and say, "no, you cannot do that" in a libertarian state? Can you also tell me that it's wrong to feed my child a high fat diet? I can't paint my porch bright yellow?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

What is the source of all the emotional hand-wringing? Is there a Christian source I don't know about? I can't find a historical or biblical source to say that abortion is murder. Ancient societies practiced it. It seems clear to me that it's a personal matter, not one that requires the state to step in. Am I a deviant? Did I miss a memo?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Michael, first, I'm not sure where it stems from. I suspect it is an extrapolation of "life is sacred" combined with an assumption that the soul is installed, so to speak, at conception.

To be clear, I am more interested in defining that point where it does transition from what is absolutely a personal matter beyond the business of "the state" and that point where there really is a compelling interest of the state because there are 2 people involved. I also understand your slippery slope concern. And I can't stand the state trying to tell parents how to raise their kids. But, killing them crosses a line I'm not prepared to ban the state from addressing.

My opposition has far more to do with killing a human that really is "viable"; capable of being more than just a piece of mom's "tissue". My willingness to live with a definition that predates "birth" has more to do with personal responsibility and an expectation that the 95%+ that are not even remotely "unavoidable" should BE avoided before asking society to go through these gyrations just for your convenience.

I have no children. That was not an "accident". And I do get personally offended when people who didn't make the rather modest choices (birth control methods) I made tell me I'm just lucky.

But, I do trust that you also would have a serious problem with "abortion" after the placenta has been expelled. And partial birth is simply a bit too close to that for my comfort; even the secular part of my brain. Either we allow it until the COMPLETE severing of the umbilical cord or ejection of the placenta, or we need to come to some kind of agreement on when we WILL stop it. Again, I know it isn't very helpful to this conversation, but I don't have any quantifiable delineation in mind. I wish I could think of one. Viability is not something I can bring myself to completely disregard though.

It's a tough one. And the emotional baggage it brings to the discussion is a serious obstacle to the discussion.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bob W. I don't see it as so arbitrary. Each state has different laws because each state is different. Each case is different as well and the state of mind is important in the decision. We let humans make decisions so we should expect some of those decisions to be different.Do I misunderstand what your desires are or do you believe that all the laws from state to state should be the same.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"It is forbidden to place a coin on the eye of the deceased". (Talmud)

Anything that would cut short a life is absolutely forbiddin in Jewish law. I've attended forums with orthodox Jewish physicians in which we get into the details of when a physician can decide that enough is enough and it's OK for the family to order that they pull the plug. Basically brain activity must be almost dead. No hope of recovery.

Yes, life is sacred. Or is it? Sometimes I wonder if an atheist savors life more than a religious person. If this is it, live life to the fullest and don't worry about tomorrow. Atheists should be even more adamant that we don't destroy a life.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

@rob,"Do I misunderstand what your desires are or do you believe that all the laws from state to state should be the same."

I was going to agree with state independence, with a caveat. Because we are talking about "life", I accidentally allowed myself to slip into "progressive thinking mode". The profoundly fundamental nature of THIS one has caused an emotional, more than cognitive, urge to come up with a "master definition"; allowing states to wander anywhere behind that line. But as I was trying to collect some examples of government defining limits or delineations I realized that I don't really like any of them.

As for state autonomy in general, I have often p1ssed people of ALL sides off by suggesting that with 50 states, I wouldn't be bothered in the least if one of them did want to allow polygamy. And if a "militia" decides to take a piece of some state and stay there, not bothering anyone else, I'm as cool with that as any commune.

This country really is here because some Puritans, Quakers, Theists, Commonwealthers and even a couple of corporations were quite happy to live side-by-side; as long as THEIR liberty was respected. I really don't know how we convinced ourselves that we are more tolerant and respectful of others than they were. With the single exception of slavery, they were more willing to coexist peacefully than even the most so-called "liberal" of today.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

@Michael,"How about the other end of the spectrum? Why is euthanasia wrong?"

Euthanasia is problematic only because the weak are easily manipulated. However, this life does belong to me. And I do reserve the right to do as I please with it; including, end it. I return to the same principle. I don't want government protecting me from myself; I would end with "period", but that doesn't carry the weight it once did.

""It is forbidden to place a coin on the eye of the deceased". (Talmud)"

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Jack,No belief system has all the answers. I choose a libertarian philosophy because it comes the closest, and it does so without relying on an elaborate and fabricated moral code. Most problems can be solved by invoking the golden rule, or if that is insufficient, what provides the most liberty.

It is one of my maxims that for every advantage, there is a disadvantage. While moral systems used by conservatives and liberals are more complex (some would say hypocritical), they can provide ready answers to the abortion question in a way that libertarians can not. The reason is obvious. The unique relationship between mother and fetus forces one to sacrifice their rights to the other, and this is a conundrum for libertarians.

Ultimately, if they are honest with themselves, I think most libertarians already have a point of view, and simply pick those arguments that justify their position.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Answer: no. States cannot ban abortion based on the idea that a fetus is viable before 6 months. Those of you who think that life begins at conception are free to think that for yourselves but not for others.

Roe v Wade was clear that a woman's pregnancy is a private matter. There is no greater value to libertarians than privacy and self- determination.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

@michael,"Roe v Wade was clear that a woman's pregnancy is a private matter. There is no greater value to libertarians than privacy and self- determination."

My problem has always been that I really don't like "winning" the wrong way. I believe it has the effect of a chip in your windshield on the consistency of our law. Aside from the usurping of state discretion, that "penumbra" really was just as much an invention of the court as was calling a purchase to itself BE a tax. And both, in time, will migrate and cause more conflicts and contradictions.

"Answer: no. States cannot ban abortion based on the idea that a fetus is viable before 6 months. Those of you who think that life begins at conception are free to think that for yourselves but not for others."

In another otherworldly moment, this really was kinda the primary angle I was seeing this from earlier. The feds need to define some "line" where it either is or isn't a person, and allow states to regulate backward from there as they choose.But I have to say, in considering my responce to that post of Jim's (I think it was his), I really may be convinced that, shy of complete separation of baby and mom, it really should be completely up to the state.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bob you know how I feel. "Civil rights" has destroyed this country. The populace is focused on what they can get from the government and how it can "protect them". That's a perfect precursor to tyranny. In the Book of Exodus, the Bible details how Egyptians gradually came to depend on their government for their every need. It wasn't the main theme but it's one that speaks to me. Joseph was an excellent administrator but he gave them over to tyranny. (Note that the rabbinical commentaries to those events say that Joseph was trying to find a way to turn their sinful nature around because he believed God was bent on destroying them.)

I'm willing to live in a free society even if it means tolerating some things that are counterintuitive. Abortion is one of them.

There must be a better way. Maybe some day Roe v Wade will be overturned. I believe God looks kindly on America. But this has got to be a black mark.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

@Michael,"Bob you know how I feel. "Civil rights" has destroyed this country. "

I believe civil rights suffered the same fate as unions and a few other things. They are victims of there own success, combined with no "exit" plan. Once they got most of what they wanted originally (things that truly were worthy), instead of stopping, they created more "wants". Government in general, but progressives specifically, never even think in terms of "solving" anything; no matter how much they use such words. They MANAGE problems; and the fact that they NEVER include "we're DONE" in the plan proves it.

I don't remember the exact details, but I remember reading about a charitable organization in France. They were too successful, and noticed that the people they helped out of poverty and off the streets began showing the same elitist and arrogant traits that they once hated others for. The charity workers had to work to refocus their attention away from themselves, and had to "find" more needy people to have these people help so that they didn't get full of themselves and become absorbed with self. I really wish I knew enough details about the story to be able to find it again. But I really think that is what happened to a the civil rights "movement" of the 60's and 70's. They ran out of legitimate stuff to demand, but liked demanding stuff so much they simply made up more stuff to demand.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am stating the differences between conservatism and idealized libertarianism, not anything that's likely to happen in my lifetime (just as it's "not gonna happen" that the government, even at the federal level, is going to get out of education).

But, if you have an interest in going "wonk" on the financing of public safety, there's a ton of material out there, and it's not "nut bar" stuff. Not-gonna-happen, and it's not something I'd pursue in any way as part of a political agenda, but it is interesting and does flex the brain's thought boundaries a bit.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

There is a lot to be said in favor of having your police force run under a contract with a privately-owned company instead of being in thrall to the local government. If nothing else, it would create a barrier between the public-employee unions and democrat politicians that has ruined a number of cities.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter,"But, if you have an interest in going "wonk" on the financing of public safety, there's a ton of material out there,"

I do not advocate privatizing law enforcement. However, are police departments created to make up for the shortcomings of private security? Or is it the other way around?

I really don't argue for private police departments, but private "protection" is frequently NEEDED because the public option fails to produce a result people are willing to live with. And no matter what your final conclusion, that is not a fact that people will disregard; at least not when it's their @ss. So it should probably be included in any public debate or discussion.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Libertarians can find common cause with conservatives over decreasing the scope and expense of government, reducing the number of transfer payments, supporting freedom of religion, decreasing restrictions on firearms, and supporting strong national defense.

Libertarians can find common cause with liberals over reducing governmental intrusions into consensual adult relationships, ending the failed War on (some) Drugs, supporting free speech, opposing corporate welfare and bailouts, and insisting on the distinction between defense and perpetual global interventionism.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

When I was young, libertarians shared many of the social positions of liberals and many of the fiscal positions of conservatives. The so-called "liberals" of today are even more likely to outlaw drugs and private activities than any conservative, and we see them defending government intrusion with a zealotry that would give McCarthy an erection.

Liberals have done a 180 on personal liberty and intellectual engagement. And conservatives spend nearly as recklessly as the liberals.

Libertarians have lost most common ground with both parties in truth. Conservatives have attempted to court libertarians the same way liberals have courted groups; mostly with lies and false promises. And since liberals have become hostile towards any independent thought, we can't go there.

I still believe any real improvement is going to come from something other than a Democrat or Republican party. Ain't hopeful. But I do believe it is our only hope.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Good observations. My view can be a bit dated at times. But it's one of the reasons I labeled the group "liberals" (thinking in terms of classical liberals). Many of the newer crop, perhaps called "progressives", are progressing toward an authoritarian nanny state.

This is why the alternate political axis of Libertarian - Authoritarian can often be more informative considering opinions.

Or as I've quoted Heinlein before:

"Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

But regardless, I think it's a good direction to emphasize any common ground, even if it's small or receding.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Agreed, but when discussing common ground with liberal friends, I find we can agree on corporate welfare at a minimum. As a libertarian I object to all welfare, but don't want to shut down the conversation before we've found at least some agreement.